Hanningfield, along with Labour MPs Elliot Morley, David Chaytor and Jim Devine, had originally tried to avoid trial, claiming parliamentary privilege. Chaytor was jailed in January, while Devine is awaiting sentencing. Morley is also due to stand trial.

From the BBC:

Lord Hanningfield faces six charges of false accounting between March 2006 and May 2009.

They are said to relate to overnight allowances for staying in London when records allegedly showed he was driven to his home near Chelmsford, Essex.

Lord Hanningfield, who will appear at the Old Bailey, is the former leader of Essex County Council.

The charges are expected to be put to to the 70-year-old so he can enter his pleas before Mr Justice Saunders, with a trial due to take place in May.

The former Labour MP for Bury North had made claims for renting two properties which were owned by him and his mother, and for IT consultancy for which he was never charged. According to the Daily Telegraph, Chaytor had spread more than £91,100 of expenses claims across five different properties in five years, ‘flipping’ the designation of his second home six times.

Together with former Labour colleagues Jim Devine and Elliot Morley, Chaytor had argued at the Court of Appeal that only Parliament could hear the case, invoking the 300-year-old immunity of parliamentary privilege. After a Court of Appeal ruling that parliamentary privilege did not apply in the case of the alleged fraudulent claiming of expenses, Chaytor had been due to be the first MP to stand trial over expenses but changed his plea just days beforehand.

Devine and Morley, sitting Labour MP Eric Illsley and the former Conservative peers Lord Hanningfield and Lord Taylor of Warwick are all due to face separate, unconnected trials involving their expenses later this year.

Elliot Morley, David Chaytor and Jim Devine, charged with theft by false accounting, had previously argued at the Court of Appeal that only Parliament could hear their case.

The three have now exhausted their challenge to an original ruling which rejected their claims to Parliamentary privilege, a 300-year-old immunity from legal proceedings arising from actions within Parliament; however the judge ruled in June that individual expense claims are “not covered by parliamentary privilege and… triable in Crown Court”.

From the BBC:

Former Bury North MP Mr Chaytor, 61, of Todmorden, West Yorkshire; former Scunthorpe MP Mr Morley, 58, of Winterton, north Lincolnshire; and former Livingston MP Devine, 57, of Bathgate, West Lothian, are all on unconditional bail and face separate trials.

All were barred by their party from standing again as Labour MPs at the general election.

From the BBC:

Elliott Morley, David Chaytor, Jim Devine and Lord Hanningfield had argued at the Court of Appeal that only Parliament could hear their case.

The four all deny charges of false accounting over their expenses.

The charges carry a maximum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment.

The men had appealed against a ruling in June by Mr Justice Saunders sitting at Southwark Crown Court in central London.

The judge had rejected arguments that they were protected by parliamentary privilege and should be dealt with by Parliament alone.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge said,

It can confidently be stated that parliamentary privilege or immunity from criminal prosecution has never, ever attached to ordinary criminal activities by Members of Parliament. It is difficult to envisage circumstances in which the performance of the core responsibilities of a MP might require or permit him or her to commit crime.

The stark reality is that the defendants are alleged to have taken advantage of the allowances scheme designed to enable them to perform their important public duties as MPs to commit crimes of dishonesty to which parliamentary immunity or privilege does not, has never, and, we believe, never would attach.

If the allegations are proved, and we emphasise, if they are proved, then those against whom they are proved will have committed ordinary crimes.

Even stretching language to its limits, we are unable to envisage how dishonest claims by MPs for their expenses or allowances begin to involve the legislative or core functions of the relevant House…In our judgment, no question of privilege arises, and the ordinary process of the criminal justice system should take its normal course.

Parliamentary privilege is a 300-year-old immunity from legal proceedings arising from actions within Parliament; however the judge ruled that individual expense claims are “not covered by parliamentary privilege and… triable in Crown Court”.

From the BBC:

Mr Justice Saunders rejected arguments by Elliot Morley, David Chaytor, Jim Devine and Lord Hanningfield that only Parliament could hear their case.

There was no bar to a trial, he said.

The four, who all deny charges of false accounting over their expenses, are to appeal against the decision.

If found guilty of charges brought under the Theft Act, they face a maximum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment.

In his ruling – delivered at Southwark Crown Court – Justice Saunders said there was no “logical, practical or moral justification” for them using parliamentary privilege to prevent prosecution, adding that there was no legal basis either.

“Unless this decision is reversed on appeal, it clears the way for what most people accused of criminal behaviour would wish for: a fair trial before an impartial jury,” he stated.

If you’re coming too, make sure you join us for the Lib Dem Voice fringe meeting:

I’ll be chairing the discussion on how to Make authoritarian MPs pay at the ballot box, and we’ll be unveiling our new website which will help to do just that.

2 Must-Read Blog Posts

What are other Liberal Democrat bloggers saying? Here are two posts that caught my eye from the Liberal Democrat Blogs aggregator:

• A bizarre political injury

Jeremy Rowe vs the radio.

• Old-Fashioned Politics

Helen Flynn hits the streets – and finds inspiration.

Spotted any other great posts in the last day from blogs that aren’t on the aggregator? Do post up a comment sharing them with us all.

2 Big Stories

MPs and peer invoke parliamentary privilege as they plead not guilty to expenses charges
From the Guardian:

Elliot Morley, David Chaytor, Jim Devine and Lord Hanningfield answered summonses at City of Westminster magistrates court to be charged with false accounting under the Theft Act.

Their cases were referred to Southwark crown court after lawyers for the men said the case was of “high constitutional importance” and they would be arguing their right for it to be heard by parliament.

Liberal Democrats launch policy for young people
From 24dash.com:

Liberal Democrat Spokeswoman for Youth and Equality, Lynne Featherstone today launched the party’s ‘Free to be Young’ policy paper.

Launching the paper at The Salmon Youth Centre in Bermondsey, the policy outlined how the Liberal Democrats will ensure that all young people have better access to after-school facilities, comprehensive support and training for those entering the workplace and legislation in place to stamp out homophobic bullying.

2 Big Stories

MPs’ expenses dominate the headlines … again

Another day, another bleak day for Parliamentary politics. Former Agriculture minister Elliot Morley was suspended from the Labour party for claiming £16,000 in expenses on a mortgage he had paid off. Meanwhile, Andrew MacKay, a senior aide to Tory leader David Cameron, resigned after claiming tens of thousands of pounds in second-home expenses on a London property that his wife, Tory MP Julie Kirkbride, designated as her main home. And as if that wasn’t enough, the House of Lords took the exceptional step of recommending supsension of two Labour peers were recommended for suspension from the Lords after allegations they had shown themselves willing to change laws in return for cash. Today it’s the turn for Labour’s Justice Minister Shahid Malik and Labour-turned-Independent MP Clare Short to feel the heat of the Telegraph’s exclusives.

And in non-expenses-related other news…

Remember Lord Myners, Labour’s city minister, and the man who approved Sir Fred Goodwin’s £703,000 a year pension from Royal Bank of Scotland, the bank which came close to collapse on his watch? Well, the Commons’ treasury select committee has criticised Lord Myners for “naivete”, and failure to give RBS a “clearer, stronger direction” that failure was not to be rewarded. The Lib Dems’ Vince Cable commented: “Never again should greed be allowed to bring down economies.”

2 Must-read Blog Posts

Nick Clegg’s Performance Rating Soars (Caron’s Musings)

Nick Clegg’s approval rating is on the brink of overtaking a flatlining David Cameron according to this. … I always thought that the more people saw of Nick, the more they would like him. He’s been getting a lot of coverage lately and has come across as straight talking, credible and likeable. I think people are realising too that he talks sense on the issues of the day and that he keeps to his word.

Constitutional reform: we told you so (Cicero’s Songs)

The constitution of the UK rests upon an electoral system where one can either vote for a party label or make a judgement on the personal qualities of an individual, but very rarely both. If you live in Scunthorpe and are a Labour supporter, you may be deeply unhappy to find that voting Labour involves voting for Eliott Morley, who is one of those MPs most deeply involved in the expenses furore. Likewise, one could be a Conservative supporter in Stratford-on-Avon and find that your party allegiance means supporting John Maples, who is also one of those most prominent in the expenses affair. …

Of course I don’t believe in safe seats for any party, and that is why Liberal Democrats argue that a single transferable vote with multi member constituencies is a better system. STV allows the electorate to choose between the candidates even amongst those of the party they support. Meanwhile in some places people would choose to split their votes between parties to support popular MPs of other parties. For example Frank Field is very popular amongst supporters of other political parties, as is Ken Clarke.

When things go wrong or bad news breaks, it can be tempting to hunker down and say nothing. If you’re a blogger, particularly one who allows comments, the idea of having to write something for your blog can be very off-putting. The thought of ignoring the keyboard and just wishing that time would move on more quickly can be very alluring.

But is that the right response? It is a situation on which I have advised various people over the years, and nearly always the best advice is actually, “keep blogging”.

The same logic applies to other online presences, such as Twitter. It’s a lesson that under-fire Labour MP Elliot Morley could have applied.

Elliott Morley has been in the news for claiming £16,000 in mortgage expenses after the mortgage had been paid off. He’s been on Twitter for a while, but rather than use this outlet to apologise or to explain, he at first simply went quiet as Croydonian spotted. Elliot Morley has since sent one tweet, but it’s not up to much:

Dreadful day cant wait to put my side of the story now gone away for a few days

Leaving aside the appalling / trendy punctuation (delete as appropriate), it just prompts the questions, “Why not tell us your side now?” and “Are you sorry?” and by neither explaining nor apologising makes himself look worse.